Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 28 May 1986

Vol. 367 No. 2

Adjournment Debate. - Rate Collectors.

Mr. Cowen

I should like to divide my time with Deputy Kitt. This matter was brought to my attention and I wish to thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise it on the Adjournment.

I do not wish to pass judgment on the negotiations which are still going on in some counties between the Department of the Environment and the relevant personnel involved, or to comment on the rights or wrongs of the level of compensation being offered. I am here on behalf of constituents to request the Minister to extend the deadline for a decision from these personnel which has been set for next Friday as to whether they will accept the arrangements. I do not wish to have an acrimonious or divisive debate as I know that heated negotiations have taken place and it is obviously a matter for the Department and the unions who represent the rate collectors to come to an amicable arrangement which will be acceptable to all concerned.

For the last two years the personnel involved have accepted that there must be a new role for rate collectors because domestic rates and those on agricultural land have been abolished. The fact that they have been asked to collect water rates, to add to their present responsibilities, is welcome. However, while they will have an increased workload — although I admit that the workload has been reduced by successive Government policies in relation to financing local authorities—there should be an ex gratia payment for those who agree with the abolition of the old posts and who are taking on new ones.

Some rate collectors may have 12 or 14 year's service and I understand that they will become revenue collectors with rates of pay on the next increment available on the scale. That means that they will not go in at the top of the scale at which revenue collectors are paid. Under the new arrangements, after five years as a revenue collector, he or she would then reach the top scale. In view of the fact that rate collectors in the past discharged their responsibilities in an honourable way and proved to be men of integrity, recognition of their service should be a matter of paramount importance to ensure that the transition from the post rate collector to revenue collector should be as free from difficulty as possible.

The workload of rate collectors in the last few years is perhaps an argument for not recognising their level of service but that is not a balanced view. Perhaps the Minister would agree to employ the rate collectors on the same levels of pay as those applying to revenue collectors as in some cases their workload has trebled. I admit that rate collectors whose present rate of pay is in excess of the highest grade which will be available to the new post of revenue collector will retain that rate of pay as revenue collectors as they are in receipt of such pay at present anyway. I accept that that is a recognition by the Department of their contribution and level of service. There is a slight dichotomy in that people of senior rank as rate collectors who will soon be revenue collectors are being allowed to maintain their rate of pay whereas rate collectors who do not have a salary in excess of the highest rate for revenue commissioners will not have their years of service recognised in the same way. Many rate collectors are senior members of the community and if the Department granted an extension of time perhaps they could agree to award them an ex gratia payment. I ask the Minister to reconsider this point.

Mr. Kitt

I wish to thank Deputy Cowen for giving me some of his time to speak on this matter. I wish to thank the Minister also for coming in to answer the question we have raised.

Can the Minister say if this agreement is voluntary? Can he say also if undue pressure will be exerted on rate collectors who find the proposals unacceptable? There are many points people want to know about. Have people been offered alternative employment? In some cases the salary on offer could be less than their current salary. The Minister will accept that no rate collector should be asked to do alternative work for a lower salary than he or she already enjoys. There is also the question of people who are willing to retire and take redundancy. There are people who had previous employment with semi-State bodies, for example, with CIE, and they are concerned about superannuation.

I know the Local Government and Public Services Union have been negotiating on behalf of the workers. The fact that we have raised this matter tonight is not a reflection on them, but to see if the deadline can be extended. My main concern relates to the voluntary nature of the scheme. That is of crucial importance and there should be no question of abolishing the office of rate collector if the workers do not accept what is offered.

Negotiations have been going on for some time in County Galway and some progress has been made. If the deadline is extended I appeal to the Minister to allow the management and unions to conclude the arrangements. I am reluctant to speak on the matter as the unions are involved in negotiations but I have been approached by a number of constituents. I am chairman of our local authority and I know the people who have given such long and outstanding service in County Galway. I hope any points I make will help resolve the matter. The deadline is 30 May. I appeal to the Minister to extend the deadline so that the negotiations may conclude.

My colleague Deputy Gallagher is chairman of local authority in County Donegal and now wishes to contribute.

Mr. P. Gallagher

I hesitate to become involved but I wish to raise one case in which the Department have been more than helpful. A rate collector was employed by County Donegal Railways. They were taken over by CIE and apparently the problem does not lie with the Department of the Environment but with CIE. They are not in a position to pass on this service. Perhaps in the next few days the Department might come up with some views on this. I do not expect an answer from the Minister tonight. He is not directly responsible.

Hopefully there will be an extension to the Friday deadline and some loose ends can be tidied up.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Boland)

I join with Deputies who have paid tribute to the performance of rate collectors over the years. Sometimes their contribution to the revenue of their respective local authorities is not always recognised. Their rate of collection was outstanding. It is significant that since the domestic and farm rate was abolished the percentage collection rate has fallen sharply. Other income sources which were attempted by the local authorities have not produced the same performance rate.

The rate collectors are to be congratulated on the efficacy of their efforts over the years. However, there is no doubt that in the past nine or ten years rate collectors have been unable to collect warrants which they previously did, first because of the abolition of the domestic rate and then, following court judgments, the abolition of the farm rate. A number of local authorities have rate collectors who do not have justifiable warrants. It is fair and reasonable that this matter must be addressed.

The terms offered to rate collectors are generous. They could opt for a severance payment together with immediate payment of pension irrespective of their age and with a degree of added years depending on their service. That is very generous in public service terms. Alternatively they could become revenue collectors. I may have a degree of bias in this because as Minister for the Public Service I was involved in the final determination of these terms. The terms were accepted by the union which represents the rate collectors. Any minor difficulties which might have emerged in the interim are a matter for local management and the individual collectors.

Many local authorities have decided to keep on somebody as a rate collector taking on an expanded warrant in return for other collectors retiring. Others have become revenue collectors. I know there was apprehension on the part of an individual rate collector in Deputy Cowen's constituency but, as of today, that individual has decided to become a revenue collector. I am not sure if the Deputy's question was prompted as a result of the natural apprehensions of that individual who felt that the job he was doing could not be done during normal office hours and that a requirement that he might perform as a revenue collector during normal office hours would not be workable.

All of these things are matters between local management and the rate collectors. There is a suggestion now from the Deputy that, in order for rate collectors — many of whom no longer have real warrants to collect — to translate into becoming revenue collectors, we should give them an ex gratia payment. But from what source is that to be funded? There is no pot of gold, and rate collectors for some years have been collecting less and less money. Now they are being invited to become revenue collectors so as to collect enough money to justify their salaries and generate income for their local authority. I cannot understand where the local authority would find the money to give them some ex gratia payment. I certainly have not got the money, unless the Deputy wants me to impose additional taxation on the general public. As I said previously, as long as I am Minister for the Environment I have no intention of doing anything that imposes one extra penny of tax on any member of the general public. So I cannot respond to the request that rate collectors should get an ex gratia payment to become revenue collectors.

There seems to be a lot of confusion about the salary scales of revenue collectors and the existing salaries of rate collectors. Both Deputy Cowen and Deputy Kitt seemed to be apprehensive that a rate collector becoming a revenue collector might suffer a loss of income. Nothing could be further from the truth. Any person translating from one position to the other will carry his salary on a personal basis if it happens to be higher than the appropriate level on the revenue collectors' scale. Some rate collectors might enter the scale an increment or two higher and thus be financially better off as a result of the transfer. The situation is that we cannot carry on indefinitely with a situation where we have rate collectors but no domestic rates, no farm rates——

Mr. Cowen

We are not seeking that.

Mr. Boland

I appreciate that. I am not suggesting that any of the three Deputies who spoke suggested that. But the reason for this rationalisation is that nobody could countenance a situation where we have rate collectors and no incidence of domestic rates and no farm rates but only commercial rates to be collected. The situation must be rationalised.

The Government's approach in this matter has been fair and reasonable. They have offered severance pay, immediate payment of pension, the option to become a revenue collector. In addition, the union involved participated and eventually agreed to the offer that was made by Government. More than six months was given for the individual members to consider their situation. But in Ireland there seems to be a confusion between consultation and procrastination. In an effort to defer decision-making, requests are made for more time on the basis that the extension will bring about a miracalous transformation in the situation. An extension will not change the situation here. All the rate collectors must be well aware of the terms that are on offer. Over six months to consider the situation is more than reasonable and it is an option which many people in the private sector do not have. I do not see that any person who has had that length of time to decide on the future is going to materially change his mind if the time is extended at this stage. Furthermore, the negotiations were conducted nationally on behalf of my predecessor with the Staff Negotiations Board and the unions and it would be unfair to both the unions and the negotiations board if I were to change the mutually agreed operative date. I do not want any rate collector to feel that I do not appreciate the contribution they have made. With a great degree of reluctance, I have to say that I see no merit in extending the time at this stage.

The Dáil adjourned at 11.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 29 May 1986.